Please explain why the impeachment investigation was unconstitutional, quoting relevant excerpts from the Constitution to support your position. Repeating your assertion is not the same as proving that it's valid.
Due process? What are you even talking about?
The Democrats conducted an impeachment investigation. Due process is required in a criminal trial, not a House investigation, and all of the Republican lawyers (so most of the Republicans in Congress) who made the "due process" claim are lying to you. They think that you're dumb and that you'll just accept any BS they tell you without taking the time to fact check their claims or even think about whether or not they make sense.
You're literally arguing that a person being investigated for a crime has the right to stomp into the police station and demand a role in the investigation. Think about that for a wee second. Does that make sense? Is that how we do things?
The President was not entitled to due process during the investigation, but according to the rules the Dems were following - rules put in place by the Republicans - all members of the committees conducting the investigation were permitted to be there and had equal time to ask questions. So when Jim Jordan said "We're heading back to the windowless vault where the Democrats are going to continue their secret investigation with no oversight" what he meant was "We're heading back to a conference room where 47 Republicans will have a chance to question each witness."
Beyond that, do you really want to start talking about how trials are supposed to work? You do? Great! Let's do it.
Here are the major players in Donald Trump's impeachment trial:
The House Impeachment Managers (The Prosecution)
The President's legal team (The Defense)
The President (The Defendant)
The Senate (The Jury)
The Chief Justice (The Judge - pretty sure he's sleeping)
The Justice Department (The Defendant's Pet Lawyers)
I think everybody knows how trials generally work, so I'll skip that and talk about how Trump's "trial" has gone.
Before the trial started the defendant informed the prosecution that they couldn't have access to any testimony or documents that would make him look guilty. The defendant could have given a real reason, like Executive Privilege, but he didn't. (Note that it's illegal to use EP to hide a criminal enterprise and draw your own conclusions.) He just told the prosecution to pound sand and added that they could sue if they wanted to, but that he'd make it take years.
At that same time the defendant's pet DOJ lawyers went to the courts and said that if the prosecution wanted testimony and documents that they'd have to impeach the defendant because they had no grounds to sue for documents and witnesses.
CATCH-22? Yes indeed! Cynical? Yup! Hypocritical? You bet!
But still the jury foreman, one Mitch McConnell, not only accepted it, but pushed the narrative. You know, like a juror upholding his oath to be impartial.
The prosecution took what they could get, put together excellent cases for corruption and obstruction, and passed it to the jury.
Right from the start the jury foreman made it clear that he would be working closely with the defendant and the defense team to ensure that the prosecution wasn't able to inconvenience the defendant too much. That seems fair, right? That's just what juries do! Due process, baby!
When the prosecution asked the foreman to consider new information or to seek the witnessed and documents that the defendant had refused to turn over the foreman said it wasn't the jury's job to look at all the available evidence. Remember the Catch-22? Well there it is again.
Anyway, having ignored all of the old evidence, blocked all of the new evidence, and done everything in his power to help the defendant the foreman scheduled a vote to formally declare the defendant innocent. Notice how I hardly even mentioned the defense? Yeah, they didn't even need to be there. The fix was in.
All that and you're whining about due process...?
And that's why the Senate declined to listen when the President's former National Security Advisor when he told them that he had direct evidence and he was willing to testify right?
Also, your claim is laughably false. It's like a five year old claiming that you never told him to brush his teeth because he had his back turned and his ears plugged when you said it.
Here are some quotes from some folks who looked at the evidence and know without a doubt that Trump did what he was accused of and that it was wrong (but still don't really care).
The President's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation. The President has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and the honor of the office, not just for himself, but for all future presidents. Degrading the office by actions or even name-calling weakens it for future presidents and it weakens our country.
~ Senator Lisa Murkowski (R)
I agree that he called the president of Ukraine and asked him to investigate the Bidens. I was convinced that at least in part, he withheld [military] aid in order to encourage the investigation.
~ Senator Lamar Alexander (R)
Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.In other words, there's plenty of evidence. You just don't care and don't want to admit it.
~ Senator Marco Rubio (R)
You guys are going to have to decide if you're mad because the impeachment investigation happened too close to the 2020 election or because it happened too fast. You can't have it both ways. Or maybe you can. Nothing else you've said makes any sense either.
By "dirty work" do you mean listen to voluntary testimony from John Bolton? You know this is the only impeachment trial ever held where there were no witnesses called, right? And you realize that the Senate is actually the jury, not the defense team, right? And you understand that the whole purpose of this process is to allow the Legislative Branch to check the power of the Chief Executive, right?
Do you understand the role of precedents and norms in a Constitutional democracy, right? The Constitution is deliberately vague, but we can't just reinvent the wheel every single time a dispute arises, so over the last couple of hundred years Presidents, lawmakers, and judges have developed ways of doing things? Those ways are called norms and precedents? They're not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but they have the weight of tradition behind them, and ignoring causes uncertainty, hard feelings, and chaos?